Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model

References

  • Adams D. A., Nelson R. R., Todd P. A. Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: Areplication. MIS Quart. (1992) 16(2):227–250CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ajzen I., J. Kuhl, J. Beckmann. Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior (1985) (Springer Verlag, New York)11–39From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviorGoogle Scholar
  • Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1991) 50(2):179–211CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ajzen I., Fishbein M.Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior (1980) (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
  • Anderson A. A. Predictors of computer anxiety and performance in information systems. Comput. Human Behavior (1996) 12(1):61–77CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bandura A.Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (1986) (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ) Google Scholar
  • Barclay D., Higgins C., Thompson R. The Partial Least Squares Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an Illustration. Tech. Stud. (1995) 2(2):285–324Special Issue on Research MethodologyGoogle Scholar
  • Beale D. A., Manstead A. S. R. Predicting mothers' intentions to limit frequency of infants' sugar intake: Testing the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. (1991) 21(5):409–431CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bergeron F., Rivard S., De Serre L. Investigating the support role of the information center. MIS Quart. (1990) 14(3):247–259CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bettman J. R., Sujan M. Effects of framing on evaluations of comparable and noncomparable alternatives by expert and novice consumers. J. Consumer Res. (1987) 14(2):141–154CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bohlin R. M., Hunt N. P. Course structure effects on students' computer anxiety, confidence and attitudes. J. Edu. Comput. Res. (1995) 13(3):263–270CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bozionelos N. Psychology of computer use: XXXIX. Prevalence of computer anxiety in British managers and professionals. Psych. Rep. (1996) 78(3):995–1002CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bozionelos N. Psychology of computer use: XLV. Cognitive spontaneity as a correlate of computer anxiety and attitudes toward computer use. Psych. Rep. (1997) 80(2):395–402CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Brown S. A., Vician M. (1997) . Understanding computer anxiety and communication apprehension as antecedents to student experiences with technology-supported learning environments. Working paper, Indiana University, Bloomington, INGoogle Scholar
  • Budd R. J. Response bias and the theory of reasoned action. Soc. Cognition (1987) 5(2):95–107CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Cambre M. A., Cook D. L. Computer anxiety: Definition, measurement, and correlates. J. Ed. Comput. Res. (1985) 1(1):37–54CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Card S. K., Moran T. P., Newell A. The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems. Comm. ACM (1980) 23:396–410CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Chan D. K. S., Fishbein M. Determinants of college women's intention to tell their partners to use condoms. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. (1993) 23(18):1455–1470CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Chin W. W., B. A. Aubert, W. W. Chin. The measurement and meaning of IT usage: Reconciling recent discrepancies between self reported and computer recorded usage. Admin. Sci. Assoc. Canada-24th Conf., IS Division Proc. (1996) 65–74Google Scholar
  • Chin W. W., Gopal A. An examination of the relative importance of four belief constructs on the GSS adoption decision: A comparison of four methods. Proc. 26th Hawaii Internat. Conf. System Sci. (1993) 548–557CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Chin W. W., Marcolin B. L., Newsted P. R. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and voice mail emotion/adoption study. Proc. 17th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (1996) (Cleveland, OH)Google Scholar
  • Chin W. W., Todd P. A. On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation modeling in MIS research: A note of caution. MIS Quart. (1995) 19(2):237–246CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Chu P. C., Spires E. E. Validating the computer anxiety rating scale: Effects of cognitive style and computer courses on computer anxiety. Comput. Human Behavior (1991) 7(1/2):7–21CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Compeau D. R.Individual Reactions to Computer Technology (1992) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Western Ontario, London, ONT., Canada) Google Scholar
  • Compeau D. R., Higgins C. A. Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Inform. Systems Res. (1995a) 6(2):118–143LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Compeau D. R., Higgins C. A. Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quart. (1995b) 19(2):189–211CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Cook T. D., Campbell D. T.Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings (1979) (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
  • Crable E. A., Brodzinski J. D., Scherer R. F., Jones P. D. The impact of cognitive appraisal, locus of control, and level of exposure on the computer anxiety of novice computer users. J. Ed. Comput. Res. (1994) 10(4):329–340CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Cragg P. B., King M. Small-firm computing: Motivators and inhibitors. MIS Quart. (1993) 17:47–60CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Davis F. D. Perceived usefulness perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. (1989) 13(3):319–339CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Davis F. D. User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Internat. J. Man-Machine Stud. (1993) 38(3):475–487CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Davis F. D., Bagozzi R. P., Warshaw P. R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Sci. (1989) 35(8):982–1002LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Davis F. D., Bagozzi R. P., Warshaw P. R. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. (1992) 22(14):1111–1132CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Davis F. D., Venkatesh V. A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: Three experiments. Internat. J. Human-Comput. Stud. (1996) 45(1):19–45CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • DeCharms R.Personal Causation: The Internal Affective Determinants of Behavior (1968) (Academic Press, New York) Google Scholar
  • Deci E. L.Intrinsic Motivation (1975) (Plenum Press, New York) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. J. Personality and Soc. Psych. (1987) 53(6):1024–1037CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Doll J., I. Ajzen. Accessibility and stability of predictors in the theory of planned behavior. J. Personality and Soc. Psych. (1992) 63(5):754–765CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Elasmar M. G., Carter M. E. Use of e-mail by college students and implications for curriculum. J. Mass Comm. Ed. (1996) 51(2):46–54Google Scholar
  • Emanuele S., Dale A., Klions H. L. Psychology of computer use: XLII. Problem solving and humor as a function of computer anxiety. Perceptual and Motor Skills (1997) 84(1):147–156CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Eysenck M. W. Anxiety: A reconceptualization. J. Res. Personality (1979) 13(4):363–385CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fazio R. H., Zanna M. Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (1978a) 14(4):398–408CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fazio R. H., Zanna M. On the predictive validity of attitudes: The role of directexperience and confidence. J. Personality (1978b) 46:228–243CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fazio R. H., Zanna M. Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. L. Berkowits, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (1981) 14(Academic Press, San Diego, CA) 161–202Google Scholar
  • Fishbein M., Ajzen I.Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research (1975) (Reading, Addison-Wesley, MA) Google Scholar
  • Gattiker U. E. Computer skills acquisition: A review and future directions for research. J. Management (1992) 18(3):547–574CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gefen D., Straub D. W. Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: An extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quart. (1997) 21(4):389–400CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gould J. D., Lewis C. Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Comm. ACM (1985) 28(3):300–311CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Harrison D. A., Mykytyn P. P., Riemenschneider C. K. Executive decisions about adoption of information technology in small business: Theory and empirical tests. Inform. Systems Res. (1997) 8:171–195LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Heinssen R. K., Glass C. R., Knight L. A. Assessing computer anxiety: Development and validation of the computer anxiety rating scale. Computers in Human Behavior (1987) 3(1):49–59CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Helson H.Adaptation-Level Theory (1964) (Harper and Row, New York) Google Scholar
  • Hendrickson A. R., Massey P. D., Cronan T. P. On the test-retest reliability of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use scales. MIS Quart. (1993) 17(2):227–230CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hirst M. K. Intrinsic motivation as influenced by task interdependence and goal setting. J. Appl. Psych. (1988) 73(1):96–101CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Howard G. S., Smith R. D. Computer anxiety in management: Myth or reality? Comm. ACM (1986) 29(7):611–615CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hunt N. P., Bohlin R. M. Teacher education students' attitudes toward using computers. J. Res. Comput. Ed. (1993) 25(4):487–497CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Igbaria M., Chakrabarti A. Computer anxiety and attitudes towards microcomputer use. Behaviour Inform. Tech. (1990) 9(3):229–241CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Igbaria M., Iivari J. The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. OMEGA Internat. J. Management Sci. (1995) 23(6):587–605CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Igbaria M., Parasuraman S. A path analytic study of individual characteristics, computer anxiety, and attitudes toward microcomputers. J. Management (1989) 15(3):373–388CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Igbaria M., Zinatelli N., Cragg P., Cavaye A. L. M. Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: A structural equation model. MIS Quart. (1997) 21(3):279–305CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Johansen R., Swigart R.Upsizing the Individual in the Downsized Organization: Managing in the Wake of Reengineering, Globalization, and Overwhelming Technological Change (1996) (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA) Google Scholar
  • Johnston D. C.New York Times (1997) 0131Computers clogged IRS seeks to hire outside processorsGoogle Scholar
  • Kanfer R., Ackerman P. L., Murtha T. C. Goal setting, conditions of practice, and task performance: A resource allocation perspective. J. Appl. Psych. (1994) 79:826–835CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Keeler C. M., Anson R. An assessment of cooperative learning used for basic computer skills instruction in the college classroom. J. Ed. Comput. Res. (1995) 12(4):379–393CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kimieck J. Predicting vigorous physical activity of corporate employees: Comparing the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. J. Sport and Exercise Psych. (1992) 14(2):192–206CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Landauer T. K.The Trouble With Computers: Usefulness Usability, and Productivity (1995) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
  • Leso T., Peck K. L. Computer anxiety and different types of computer courses. J. Ed. Comput. Res. (1992) 8(4):469–478CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Liebert R. M., Morris L. W. Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A distinction and some initial data. Psych. Rep. (1967) 20(3):975–978CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Loyd B. H., Loyd D. E., Gressard C. Gender and computer experience as factors in the computer attitudes of middle school students. J. Early Adolescence (1987) 7(1):13–19CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Malone T. W. Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Sci. (1981a) 5(4):333–369CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Malone T. W. What makes computer games fun? Byte (1981b) 6(12):258–278Google Scholar
  • Marcoulides G. A., Mayes B. T., Wiseman R. L. Measuring computer anxiety in the work environment. Ed. Psych. Measurement (1995) 55(5):804–810CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Martocchio J. J. Effects of conceptions of ability on anxiety self-efficacy, and learning in training. J. Appl. Psych. (1994) 79(6):819–825CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Mathieson K. Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Inform. Systems Res. (1991) 2(3):173–191LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Maurer M. M. Computer anxiety correlates and what they tell us: A literature review. Comput. Human Behavior (1994) 10(3):369–376CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • McCaul K. D., O'Neill H. K., Glasgow R. E. Predicting the performance of dental hygiene behaviors: An examination of the Fishbein and Ajzen model and self-efficacy expectations. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. (1988) 18(2):114–128CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Mervis C. B., Rosch E. Categorization of natural objects. Ann. Rev. Psych. (1981) 32:89–115CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Moore G. A.Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers (1991) (Harper-Collins, New York) Google Scholar
  • Moore G. C., Benbasat I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inform. Systems Res. (1991) 2(3):192–222LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Morris L. W., Davis M. A., Hutchings C. H. Cognitive and emotional components of anxiety: Literature review and a revised worry-emotionality scale. J. Ed. Psych. (1984) 73(4):541–555CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Morris M. G., Venkatesh V. Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing workforce. Personnel Psych. (2000) 53:375–403CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Morrow P. C., Prell E. R., McElroy J. C. Attitudinal and behavioral correlates of computer anxiety. Psych. Rep. (1986) 59(3):1199–1204CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Norman D. A.Things That Make Us Smart: Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine (1993) (Addison-Wesley, Reading MA) Google Scholar
  • Northcraft G. B., Neale M. A. Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1987) 39:84–97CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Oliver R. L., Bearden W. O. Crossover effects in the theory of reasoned action: A moderating influence attempt. J. Consumer Res. (1985) 12:324–340CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Parasuraman S., Igbaria M. An examination of gender differences in the determinants of computer anxiety and attitudes toward microcomputers among managers. Internat. J. Man-Machine Stud. (1990) 32(3):327–340CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Payne J. W., Bettman J., Johnson E. J.The Adaptive Decision Maker (1993) (Cambridge University Press, New York) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Philipi B. N., Martin R. P., Meyers J., C. D. Spielberger. Current Trends in Theory and Research (1972) II(Academic Press, New York) . Interventions in relation to anxiety in schoolGoogle Scholar
  • Pindyck R. S., Rubenfeld D. L.Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts (1981) (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York) Google Scholar
  • Popovich P., Hyde K., Zakrajesek T., Blumer C. The development of the attitudes towards computer usage scale. Ed. Psych. Measurement (1987) 47(1):261–269CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ray N. M., Minch R. P. Computer anxiety and alienation: Toward a definitive and parsimonious measure. Human Factors (1990) 32(4):477–491CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Reznich C. B. Applying minimalist design principles to the problem of computer anxiety. Comput. Human Behavior (1996) 12(2):245–261CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ronis D. L., Kaiser M. K. Correlates of breast self-examination in a sample of college women: Analyses of linear structural relations. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. (1989) 19(13):1068–1084CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sambamurthy V., Chin W. The effects of group attitudes toward GDSS designs on the decision-making performance of computer-supported groups. Decision Sci. (1994) 25(2):215–242CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Schifter D. E., Azjen I. Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An application of the theory of planned behavior. J. Personality and Soc. Psych. (1985) 49(3):843–851CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Schuh K. L. The lecture classroom environment and its effects on change in computer anxiety of students taking computer proficiency classes. J. Ed. Comput. Res. (1996) 15(3):241–259CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Scott C. R., Rockwell S. C. The effect of communication, writing, and technology apprehension on likelihood to use new communication technologies. Comm. Ed. (1997) 46(1):44–62CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Segars A. H., Grover V. Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quart. (1993) 17(4):517–525CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sheppard B. H., Hartwick J., Warshaw P. R. The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. J. Consumer Res. (1988) 15:325–343CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sichel D. E.The Computer Revolution: An Economic Perspective (1997) (The Brookings Institution, Washington DC) Google Scholar
  • Simonson M. R., Maurer M., Montag-Torardi M., Whitaker M. Development of a standardized test of computer literacy and a computer anxiety index. J. Ed. Comput. Res. (1987) 3(2):231–247CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Slovic P., Lichtenstein S. Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgement. Organ. Behavior and Human Performance (1971) 6:641–744Google Scholar
  • Sparks P., D. R. Rutter, L. Quine. The Social Psychology of Health and Safety: European Perspectives (1994) (Avebury Press, Aldershot, England) 25–46Attitudes towards food: Applying assessing and extending the theory of planned behaviourGoogle Scholar
  • Sparks P., Guthrie C. A., Shepherd R. The dimensional structure of the perceived behavioral control construct. J. Appl. Social Psych. (1997) 27(5):418–438CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Straub D., Limayem M., Karahanna-Evaristo E. Measuring system usage: Implications for IS theory testing. Management Sci. (1995) 41(8):1328–1342LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Streitfeld B., Wilson M. The ABCs of categorical perception. Cognitive Psych. (1986) 18:432–451CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Subramanian G. H. A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use measurement. Decision Sci. (1994) 25(5/6):863–874CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Szajna B. Software evaluation and choice: Predictive validation of the technology acceptance instrument. MIS Quart. (1994) 18(3):319–324CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Szajna B. Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Management Sci. (1996) 42(1):85–92LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Szajna B., Scamell R. W. The effects of information system user expectations on their performance and perceptions. MIS Quart. (1993) 17:493–516CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Taylor S., Todd P. A. Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Inform. Systems Res. (1995) 6(2):144–176LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Terry D. J. Coping resources and situational appraisals as predictors of coping behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences (1991) 12(10):1031–1047CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Terry D. J., D. J. Terry, C. Gallois, M. McCamish. The Theory of Reasoned Action: Its Application to AIDS-preventive Behaviour (1993) (Pergamon, Oxford, U.K). Self-efficacy expectancies and the theory of reasoned actionGoogle Scholar
  • Terry D. J. The determinants of coping: The role of stable and situational factors. J. Personality and Soc. Psych. (1994) 66(5):895–910CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Terry D. J., O'Leary J. E. The theory of planned behaviour: The effects of perceived behavioural control and self-efficacy. British J. Soc. Psych. (1995) 34(2):199–220CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Thompson R. L., Higgins C. A., Howell J. M. Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quart. (1991) 15(1):124–143CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tobias S. Anxiety research in educational psychology. J. Ed. Psych. (1979) 71(5):573–582CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Todd P., Benbasat I. An experimental investigation of the impact of computer-based decision aids on the decision making process. Inform. Systems Res. (1991) 2(2):87–115LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Todd P., Benbasat I. An experimental investigation of the impact of computer-based DSS on processing effort. MIS Quart. (1992) 16(3):373–393CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Todd P., Benbasat I. Decision-makers, DSS and decision making effort: An experimental investigation. INFOR (1993) 31(2):1–21Google Scholar
  • Todd P., Benbasat I. The influence of DSS on choice strategies: An experimental analysis of the role of cognitive effort. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1994) 60:36–74CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Todman J., Monaghan E. Qualitative differences in computer experience, computer anxiety, and students' use of computers: A path model. Comput. Human Behavior (1994) 10(4):529–539CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science (1974) 185:1124–1131CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Vallerand R. J. Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Adv. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (1997) 29:271–360CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Venkatesh V. Creating favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quart. (1999) 23(2):239–260CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Venkatesh V., Davis F. D. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sci. (1996) 27(3):451–481CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Venkatesh V., Davis F. D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Sci. (2000) 46:186–204LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Venkatesh V., Morris M. G. Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and user behavior. MIS Quart. (2000) 24:115–139CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Venkatesh V., Speier C. Computer technology training in the workplace: A longitudinal investigation of the effect of the mood. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1999) 79(1):1–28CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Venkatesh V., Speier C. Creating an effective training environment for enhancing telework. Internat. J. Human-Compute. Stud. (2000) 52:991–1005CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Venkatesh V., Morris M. G., Ackerman P. L. A longitudinal field study of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision making processes. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes (2000) 83:33–60CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • de Vries H., Dijkstra M., Kuhlman P. Self-efficacy: The third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as a predictor of behavioural intentions. Health Ed. Res. (1988) 3(3):273–282CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Warshaw P. R. A new model for predicting behavioral intentions: An alternative to Fishbein. J. Marketing Res. (1980) 17:153–172CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Webster J., Martocchio J. J. Microcomputer playfulness: Development of a measure with workplace implications. MIS Quart. (1992) 16(2):201–226CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Webster J., Trevino L. K., Ryan L. The dimensionality and correlates of flow in human-computer interactions. Comput. Human Behavior (1993) 9(4):411–426CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Weiner L. R.Digital Woes: Why We Should Not Depend on Software (1993) (Addison-Wesley, Reading MA) Google Scholar
  • White K. M., Terry D. J., Hogg M. A. Safer sex behavior: The role of attitudes, norms, and control factors. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. (1994) 24(24):2164–2192CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wurtele S. K. Increasing women's calcium intake: The role of health beliefs intentions and health value. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. (1988) 18(8):627–639CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Zoltan E., Chapanis A. What do professional persons think about computers? Behaviour and Inform. Tech. (1982) 1(1):55–68CrossrefGoogle Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.